Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Dec 10, 2010 9:29am
Forum: feature_films Subject: GOG is NOT PD and SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM IA

http://www.archive.org/details/Gog_1954

Registration Number / Date: RE0000087096 / 1981-03-30
Renewal registration for: LP0000003825 / 1954-06-05 (in notice: 1953)

I just posted this 'review' at the above page:

"This is a bootleg digital copy that has clipped off the last minute or so where the copyright indeed was.

Check out the running time at IMDb or Wikipedia and compare it to this shortened bootleg copy that does the Internet Archive's great reputation a poorly executed injustice.

Or watch it on Netflix and see the colophonic information, including a correct copyright notice at one hour and twenty two minutes.

Or buy a copy from Sinister Cinema for $18. (They have a contract with UA for this one and others).

No PD sellers carry it, because it's not PD."

Instead of addressing these facts (as well as Video Cellar's citing this film as copyrighted), the uploader says "It's not at all unusual to see copyright information ADDED to a PD movie."

While I question the "usual" nature of this practice, it has on occasion been done, although in this particular case there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to accuse unnamed persons or forces of fraud. Except the uploader's own shortened bootleg copy.

Anyone who will take the time to see the full version will see the copyright notice and will note that a considerable amount of video artwork would have to be done to pull off this 'copyfraud."

Sticking to the registration and renewal numbers, the running time, the lack of PD sellers, that is, sticking to the just the facts and an expert, this film is Not PD.

The page says it has been downloaded eight hundred odd times. What's 800 times $17.95 (The actual price of the film)? About $14,000.00. That's not baseless theory, that's fact.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Elric_Dewisant Date: Dec 10, 2010 10:11am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: GOG: Give it a rest. It's been debated and settled.

For reference, here's what has been said in the reviews in rebuttal:

skybandit wrote: "We've already had this discussion over on the forum. If a 1954 film doesn't have a copyright notice, it falls into the Public Domain the first time it's shown, and this flick doesn't have one. Filling out renewal forms 28 years later doesn't restore the lost copyright."

billbarstad wrote: "Prove It: I didn't edit the file to remove any copyright information. It's not at all unusual to see copyright information ADDED to a PD movie. It's called copyfraud, as is renewing films that have no notice. We'll see if IA gets a takedown notice."

I wrote: Yes: Because: A) billbarstad, a very prolific contributor, has nothing better to do than to remove *one* copyright statement, out of some 100+ submissions, and on a movie that I happen to know that he likes, but doesn't love. and B) IMDB is incontrovertable gospel and the only reference that covers the billion different micro-fractional running times a movie can potentially have. This explains why IMDB lists 5 running times for Metropolis and I've seen prints with 20 running times that are different from anything IMDB lists. and, finally C) Movies can only have *ONE* running time, because IMDB says so, as IMDB is canon and, therefore, absolutely precise in what it lists. There is no difference between 84 minutes and 84 minutes and 55 seconds. Puh-LEEZ. Someone's tin foil hat is on too tight."

This has been rehashed repeatedly if someone would bloody bother to *READ* the appropriate threads. Do we *really* need a sequel titled "Gog II: Beating a *Very* Dead Horse"?

This post was modified by Elric_Dewisant on 2010-12-10 18:11:53

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: gzd Date: Dec 10, 2010 10:36am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: GOG: Give it a rest. It's been debated and settled.

For what it's worth, here is the original registration with the USCO (from the 1950-1959 cumulative copyright catalog for movies):

GOG. Ivan Tors Productions. Released by
United Artists Corp. 85 min., sd., color,
35mm. Eastman color. Ivan Tors Productions,
Inc.; 5Jun54 (in notice: 1953);
LP3825.

Since the original registration mentions a copyright notice date and a running time of 85mn, (3mn longer than billbarstad's print), it sounds quite possible that elmagno is right and that the film was released with a copyright notice that is missing from the print uploaded here.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Elric_Dewisant Date: Dec 10, 2010 12:18pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: GOG: Give it a rest. It's been debated and settled.

I agree with this. It is the implication of the OP that pissed me off.

I'm just not willing to suffer fool/s lightly, today. Gog has been about one out of every three posts for longer than the WinkyLeaks Affair.

Point of fact: The file has been looked at and the print comes to an actual, natural end. It doesn't appear to be cut off. That is, the film, at the very end, says "The End" *with no copyright statement of any kind* and fades out. By reason of logic, content and structure, it is a complete film. Nothing is cut out and it is PD, as, has been repeated over and over and over and over and over and BLOODY OVER. A film that does not have a copyright notice, from that period, is PD from *it's first showing*. The last part of that line of reasoning is established, supported, fact of law. Period.

Personally, I don't really care about the damn movie. I'm sick to the teeth of having to wade through four feet of "OMG! TEH GOG NOT PD BAD" shit from morons every other damn day. The original registration has been looked at. The renewal has been looked at. The fucking *print* has been looked at.

Point of fact: Ivan Tors copyrighted it (1954). Ivan Tors renewed it (1981). If Ivan Tors was stupid enough to put out a print with no legal copyright statement ("Copyright 1954, Ivan Tors Productions" or similar with date and registered owner included in the statement), then, legal fact, the film is in the public domain.

Point of fact: skybandit has a VHS copy *that he legitimately and legally bought* and that copy *has no copyright statement*. Why elmagno is blatantly ignoring that fact is beyond me, but seeing as how facts, logic and reason aren't getting in his way, I can only surmise that he's dumb enough to vote for a spoon in the 2012 presidential election.

Point of fact: The file was posted after *much* debate, because the general consensus is that it is, indeed, PD.

Point of fact: Ivan Tors (who died in 1983) or his rightful, legal heirs can file a takedown notice with IA and IA *will* remove it at that time..whether it's legitimately PD or not.

Minor Point of fact: IA doesn't fight for shit, even though copyright fraud is rife throughout the US copyright registry. They just don't have the budget or staff for enforcement or prosecution of copyright fraud offences.

Point of fact: Running time is irrelevant, as different edits, different releases (theatrical, et al) different encooding and different frame rates yield different running times, regardless of medium. B(Different)FD.

Point of fact: I am now not only sick of Gog, sick of hearing or talking about Gog and sick to the teeth of rehashing the legal status of Gog for the unpteen quintillionth time this month, but am also sick of typing "Point of fact:".

Sources: HERE and HERE. I am positive there are others, but I'm sick of reading about Gog and looking up Gog related posts. But then, obviously, the OP won't read more then 4 non-consecutive words (probably the easy ones and in no particular order) and won't bloody pay attention, as if he had, multiple redundancy wouldn't be a problem.

My only idea for compromise is that Gog be removed from IA for all time and from here on out, anyone who even says "Gog" be beaten into a coma. I'm completely sick of it constantly coming up.

My only suggestion is for everyone to STFU about Gog, as this horse has been beaten so far into oblivion and the ASPCA should probably be notified about animal cruelty.

Now, can we please bloody drop Gog, get elmagno a better fitting tin foil hat (yes, that again, just because) that isn't quite so tight, and let everyone know that Neil Armstrong, et al, really did land on the moon?

Enough, already!

Point of fact: DAMNIT!!!

This post was modified by Elric_Dewisant on 2010-12-10 20:18:43

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Dec 10, 2010 3:34pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Point of Fact or Just Making Stuff Up?

Point of fact: When you pretend to know facts that you just make up, you degrade the discussion.

Here's you, "quoting" skybandit:

Point of fact: skybandit has a VHS copy *that he legitimately and legally bought* and that copy *has no copyright statement*. Why elmagno is blatantly ignoring that fact is beyond me,

Here's skybandit quoting himself:

"I taped this off TNT just like Guy did."
(November 30, 2010 02:21:21am)

Facts? Points of fact?
Or just making stuff up?

This post was modified by elmagno on 2010-12-10 23:34:51

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Elric_Dewisant Date: Dec 10, 2010 9:34pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Point of Fact or Just Making Stuff Up?

I refer the right *snerk* honorable *SNERK!*gentleman *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!* to Title 17, section 105 of the USC (and, in fact, most all of the rest of Title 17), as well as Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices section 206.01 [1] Paragraph 3.6 at 14 February 2006 as well as Howell v Miller, (91 F 129 (1898) and various further case law. In fact, I point the good sir *snix* to a book. Any book will do, really. Preferrably one with words. Any questions? Good. Let us know how you make out. Now move along. The adults are talking.

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen! Give him a nice condescending, if not downright patronizing, round of applause. elmagno! An idiot. A cretin. A moron. An asshat, an illiterate and a fucktard. Recipient of the Royal Assamese Order of the Troll, 2nd class, that nation's highest honour. A douchenozzle. A real, genuine, authentic, unadulterated, complete and total knob-jockey.

He is also available for bar mitzvahs, weddings, funerals and brises (as long as he can keep the foreskin for his collection).

This post was modified by Elric_Dewisant on 2010-12-11 05:34:10

Attachment: elmagno_thought_process_demo.txt

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Dec 10, 2010 10:23am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: GOG: Give it a rest. It's been debated and settled.

No one, especially me, accused any particular person of altering this altered film. So get your own facts straight.

Seen a good copy of this film?

Do you have a theory you'd like to advance as to how the copyright is not in the uploader's copy?

Any real facts appreciated.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Elric_Dewisant Date: Dec 10, 2010 10:31am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: GOG: Give it a rest. It's been debated and settled.

Why should facts get in your way? The concept of rampant copyright fraud in the registries, accepting consensus, and reason certainly haven't.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Dec 10, 2010 10:45am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: GOGis Not Pd

So you think Gog is a victim of "rampant copyright fraud in the registries"?

The uploader thinks it's not that at all, but in the film itself. Two very different justifications, I mean theories.

Neither has had a single fact offered in their support.

Generalizations are not facts. Nor is the bandwagon rhetoric of "consensus."



This post was modified by elmagno on 2010-12-10 18:45:16

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Dec 10, 2010 11:15am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: GOG is NOT PD and SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM IA

See skybandit's first post. Or doesn't an old copy of the movie count with you somehow?

This post was modified by billbarstad on 2010-12-10 19:15:46

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Dec 10, 2010 11:15am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

I've already seen that post.

Have you seen this?


http://www.mightydrives.com/pmi/moviecatalog/imagesformovies/gogcolophon.jpg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Dec 10, 2010 11:24am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

So old copies that show the film was released without a copyright notice don't count with you. How very selective. Don't let the facts or common sense get in the way of your opinion!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Dec 10, 2010 11:36am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

I just showed you a high resolution picture of the copyright for Gog.
You're welcome.
It comes at one hour and twenty two minutes. What does your copy have at this point in time?

Where did you get your copy from? And do you know anything about skybandit's copy you seem to be relyin;g on?

He said "I've got an old, ragged VHS version." Maybe it's bootleg like yours?

Where did you get your copy and what came with it?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Elric_Dewisant Date: Dec 10, 2010 11:52am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

And who is to say that your copy has those frames added after the fact? That would be be copyright fraud.

Point of fact: If the film even accidentally entered into PD status due to a mistake either in registration or release, the original producer would be committing copyright fraud after the fact by attempting to reclaim the work.

I'm not confusing you, am I?

I know! I'll contact a necromancer and have him raise Ivan Tors from the dead so we can ask him! Any requests for other dead people, while I'm at it?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Dec 10, 2010 12:02pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

You said:

"And who is to say that your copy has those frames added after the fact? That would be be copyright fraud."

Who is to say? Are you saying it? Think about it. This statement applies to every single film ever made with a copyright notice. Tens of thousands of films. A huge generalization that's as wide as they come, but without any facts or evidence in this case.

"Point of fact: If the film even accidentally entered into PD status due to a mistake either in registration or release, the original producer would be committing copyright fraud after the fact by attempting to reclaim the work."

Another "would be" generalization with nothing to back in up in this case.

Your personal insults could be better but specific facts would be even more appreciated.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Elric_Dewisant Date: Dec 10, 2010 12:22pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

Oh, yes. You're absolutely right in absolutely everything you....wait. No. What complete and utter bullshit.

I'm sorry. Generalizations? What? Have you ever paid any attention to any discussion of copyright law ever held on this site in any of the forums? Have you *read* any part of Title 17 of the United States Code (That's the volume entirely dedicated to copyright law!)? Have you studied copyright law in any detail beyond that "for dummies" pamphlet you picked up at your local branch of the John Birch Society memburr's borrowin' liebary? Do you even know how to read beyond a third grade level?

I've been resisting it, but now I just can't get past it. And, now, I just don't feel any need to be even remotely nice about it.

Point of fact: You. Are. A. Fucking. Idiot. >.<

Source: Read this entire thread.

On an unrelated note, Zombie Ivan Tors called. He doesn't remember and is very hungry for brains. I suggested he try your house, but he was afraid of starving to death.

I give up. I'm done.

Moral: There is no point to having a battle of wits, let alone a civil conversation, with an unarmed thing like elmagno.

(Ban me. I don't really care, right now. This is one post I'll stand by to my dying day.)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: guyzilla Date: Dec 10, 2010 12:40pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

I agree on one thing and that this controversy has dragged on longer than it should, I will say that had I a decent copy of this film I don't think I would have uploaded it because I do harbor enough doubt that it is ok for upload. But it IS here and I am curious to see what happens at this point, whether it does get taken down and how long it takes for that to happen. There are other films here on IA that I THINK may be copyright, such as FRANKENSTEIN '80, which I think may be GATT, but since I have no real facts to bear me out, and no one else has said anything about it, I'm forced to give it the benefit of the doubt, since I have posted my suspicions about this film. Getting back to GOG, I have a hunch this will be pulled at some point, but I'm not willing to bet my collection of FAMOUS MONSTERS on it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Dec 10, 2010 11:45am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

Tired of this crap. Not interested in your bizarre inquisition. We'll see what happens. Go back to your email rage thing, Ok?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Dec 10, 2010 12:34pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

Your personal insults are noted and won't be returned.

But I'm not going anywhere. Why not tell us about where you got your copy and why you stand behind it? It could clarify things.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Dec 10, 2010 2:22pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

You've insulted me and skybandit. There is no personal insult toward you in my last post that I can see, and none intended. Cough *troll* cough.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Dec 10, 2010 4:10pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

Why not tell us about where you got your copy and why you stand behind it? It could clarify things.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skybandit Date: Dec 10, 2010 1:21pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

This is from the original credits found on Google Video:

http://i1018.photobucket.com/albums/af309/skybandit/Gog/Gogcopyrightnoticeexampleofothercredits2.jpg

This is the credit screenshot showing copyright:
http://i1018.photobucket.com/albums/af309/skybandit/Gog/Gogcopyrightnoticeexampleofothercredits1.jpg

The different backgrounds and different fonts seem to indicate that the second was, indeed, added later, possibly for the DVD release. Again, all the copyright data may apply to the 3D version, and somebody forgot to transfer them to the 2D copy way back when. I once heard that "Night of the Living Dead" became PD when 16mm prints were mastered for lower eschelon theaters and the copyright notice was left off, which is part of the reason PD copies are low-quality. Anyone ever seen this thing in more that two dimensions?

This post was modified by skybandit on 2010-12-10 21:21:43

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Dec 10, 2010 11:47pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

The screen cap with the notice is from the "restored" flat version of the original 3d version of the film, which was originally presented in a 1.66:1 ratio. The version uploaded here without notice is the "flat" version that was made and released just after the original 3d release (this was presented in the 1.85:1 ratio).

Even if someone argued that the original flat version of the film was PD due to omission of notice, it is technically a derivative work and falls under the prior, enforcable copyright of the 3d version.

Re NOTLD: That film lost its copyright due to a last minute title change prior to release. The original title and copyright notice were removed, but only the title was replaced putting the film into the PD on release.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Dec 11, 2010 4:43am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

Great to have the facts on this film. I read somewhere, maybe IMDb (maybe not), that by its 1954 release the 3D craze had actually peaked and was passing and that the film didn't show much at all in 3D.

The Google copy claims to have come originally from IA some two years ago. Does anyone recall a prior take down notice?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skybandit Date: Dec 11, 2010 9:25pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

“Even if someone argued that the original flat version of the film was PD due to omission of notice, it is technically a derivative work and falls under the prior, enforcable copyright of the 3d version.”…IF the 3D version had a copyright notice, a question we can’t seem to get answered! :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Dec 12, 2010 7:04am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

Good point.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skybandit Date: Dec 13, 2010 7:08pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

Better safe than sorry and all that. I'm a nice guy, so I nicked my new DVD version from Google instead of here.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Dec 11, 2010 5:35am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

Thanks.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skybandit Date: Dec 13, 2010 7:12pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

"Re NOTLD: That film lost its copyright due to a last minute title change prior to release. The original title and copyright notice were removed, but only the title was replaced putting the film into the PD on release."
Once again proving that not everything I've heard is true. Thanks for weighing in on this, the flames were beginning to burn! :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Dec 10, 2010 2:33pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

This is a good way to approach it, I think. I just rewatched Netflix and, though the fonts looked alike to me, I'll have to defer to you and others on that.

The colors and background are noticeably dissimilar. But, then again the beginning shows the same difference compared to "The End" page, that is, they don't match either.

Are you pretty confident that your VHS copy is an Ivan Tors/UA original?

This is an edit: Sorry, I found your post where you said you taped your copy off the TV.

This post was modified by elmagno on 2010-12-10 22:33:02

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Dec 10, 2010 3:02pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

Just noticed that Gog has been at Google Video for 2 years.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: guyzilla Date: Dec 10, 2010 4:02pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

I wonder what the print at Sinister Cinema looks like. Might just check that out.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kimpunkrock Date: Dec 13, 2010 1:21am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

yes because the company claiming copyright doesnt own said film. It is a FAKE copyright claim.

Get a life loser.

I cant stand little bosy bodied idiots like yourself that go around looking for films to pull from archive.org, esp older ones.

screw u.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kimpunkrock Date: Dec 13, 2010 1:27am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: GOG is NOT PD and SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM IA

why do u care? what are u a stupid fed or something.

GET A LIFE!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kimpunkrock Date: Dec 13, 2010 1:19am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: GOG is NOT PD and SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM IA

what is your problem! Are u an idiot or something!!! 18 dollars is WAY TOO MUCH to charge for a movie like this let alone any movie.

You are nothing but a busy body who really should get a life instead of worrying about old movies on archive.org.

people like u are a-holes.

All of u going around complaining about movies on archive really need a slap. Half of u are representing companies with FAKE copyright claims. F-off.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)